Mailing-List: contact dev-help@avalon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Avalon Developers List" <dev@avalon.apache.org>
To: dev@avalon.apache.org
From: Ulrich Mayring <ulim@denic.de>
Subject: Re: [RT] Distilling the requirements for Block Support
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:15:11 +0000
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <b82tmi$o7v$1@main.gmane.org>
References: <3EA00212.6040603@apache.org>
 <200304190130.26483.peter@realityforge.org> <3EA01A3B.8000903@apache.org>
 <200304190140.28969.peter@realityforge.org> <3EA01CD5.1090406@apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
Sender: news <news@main.gmane.org>

Berin Loritsch wrote:
> 
> Now, you objected to the term Block for what I was proposing.  Fine.
> However, Cocoon and GUIApp have similar needs, as I am sure many
> other applications will.  If we don't call it a Block we can call it
> a Plugin, or some other name--I don't care what its called.  I just
> care that we have something that works.

A German saying goes: Names are just sound and smoke. Umberto Eco sees 
it differently. Take your pick :)

Personally, I think the term "block" should be avoided like all terms, 
which refer to something that actually exists and is used. Otherwise 
we'll later talk about "Avalon blocks" vs. "Phoenix blocks" vs. "Cocoon 
blocks" and things become fuzzy.

Ulrich


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org